Kolkata Court March 1929 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Tea Financing Syndicate, Ltd. Vs. Chandra Kamal Bezboruah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal641
Page, J.1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 69,942-15-0 and interest thereon alleged to be due under an agreement between the parties of 3rd February 1920 as the balance of a mutual open and current account.2. The defendant does not pretend that he has not received from the plaintiffs the money for which he is being sued but I do not conceive it to be my duty to pass any comment upon his conduct in relying upon the defence which has been urged before me. In this connexion I desire to cite and make my own the words of Lord Justice Pry in Reeves v. Butcher [1891] 2 Q.B. 509,I have not to determine whether the defence here set up is handsome or conscientious but whether it is good in law, and I am or opinion that it is. 3. Now, the defence is that the claim is barred by limitation.4. The suit was brought on 22nd February 1924, and therefore, unless the account in respect of which the claim is made was a mutual open and current account it is barred by limitation under Article 59, Lim. Act.5. ...
Dwijendra Krishna Dutt and anr. Vs. Kedar Nath Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal670
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors against an order of the Subordinate Judge reopening an execution proceeding on an application made by the decree-holder on 22nd March 1926. The ground on which the Court below has granted his application for reopening the execution proceeding and allowed him to execute the decree again for a sum of Rs. 2150-5-0, was that the decree-holder made a mistake in calculating the amount due to him under the decree and in stating in his petition dated 22nd March 1926 that the decree was satisfied on payment of Rs. 5,300 by the judgment-debtors on that date. The learned Subordinate Judge who was the predecessor of the Subordinate Judge who finally decided the case held that the Court had jurisdiction to reopen an execution proceeding on the ground of mistake on the authority of the case of Nil Ratan Khasnobish v. Ram Rutton Chatterji [1901] 5 C.W.N. 627 on which the respondent also relies in this Court in support of the judgment of the S...
Kailashpati Upadhya and anr. Vs. Gopi Koeri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal60
1. This rule was issued to show cause why the order of the learned District Magistrate of Howrah rejecting the application made by the petitioners for the quashing of an order issuing processes against them under Section 323 should not be set aside. The main ground urged is that the petitioners had already previously been tried for an offence under the Railways Act and had been convicted and fined, and that being so, they ought not to be again placed in peril in respect of another offence arising out of the same facts for which they might have been tried and convicted at the former trial. The trying Magistrate relying upon Section 403(2), Criminal P.C. held that the trial was competent and the learned District Magistrate has endorsed that view. The point involved is not altogether free from doubt; but we do not think that we are called upon to decide it in this case inasmuch as it seems to be clear that while there was no charge of assault in the previous case, and which the accused we...
King Vs. King
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Cal418
Costello, J.1. (After giving the facts and on a scrutiny of evidence finding the adultery of respondent proved, the Judgment proceeded). There remains, however, another matter with which I have to deal, and that is the question whether, in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner is entitled to the relief which he seeks. It is clear, to my mind that the petitioner has been guilty of considerable delay in the institution of these proceedings. The explanation which he gives amounts to this. He says that he did not take proceedings against his wife, after he had discovered her in bed with the co-respondent on 18th June, because he thought his story, without further corroboration would not be believed, and that, after the correspondent's garments and shoes, had been surreptitiously removed from the petitioner's premises, he found himself in the position of having no tangible evidence to support his story. I have already indicated that if the petitioner's story is accurate in every de...
Ahmed Ali Sheik Vs. Sabed Sardar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal468
Graham, J.1. This rule was issued to show cause why certain proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. should not be quashed. The main ground which has been urged before us is that inasmuch as the police report disclosed the fact that the first party was in possession of the land, and that the second party were aggressors and were trying to disturb his possession, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make an order under Section 145, and that the proper course for him to adopt was to issue an injunction under Section 144, Criminal P.C., or to bind down the second party under Section 107, Criminal P.C. We have been referred to some decided cases in support of this contention and amongst them to a recent decision of our own in W. Stewart v. Hubert Hughes : AIR1929Cal341 . The facts of that case are distinguishable from the present as the police report itself plainly showed that there was and had been for some time no immediate apprehension of a breach of the peace but only a po...
Giribala Dasi Vs. Prokash Chandra Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal496
1. The facts of the case out of which this rule has arisen are these: the petitioner is a widow. Her brother-in-law applied for probate of her deceased husband's estate. Notice was duly served on the petitioner. She duly filed her objection and at the same time made an application for the appointment of a Court Officer to inspect and make an inventory of all the moveables left by her husband, which ran the risk of being stolen and misappropriated by the opposite-party. The learned District Judge rejected the application of the petitioner for making an inventory of the movables left by her husband on the ground that there was no provision for such a proceeding in the Succession Act. Section 268, Succession Act provides that:the proceedings of the Court of the District Judge in relation to the granting of probate and letters of administration shall, save as hereinafter otherwise provided, be regulated, as far as the circumstances of the case permit by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.2. ...
Emperor Vs. Girish Chandra Kundu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal777
Buckland, J.1. Girish Chandra Kundu, 'Sudhir Chandra Kundu and Pramatha Nath Kundu have been committed to this Court for trial upon charges under Section 103, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. A doubt as to the legality of the commitment having arisen in my mind, I have given the learned Counsel for the Crown and the prisoners an opportunity of arguing the point. Though nothing has been urged on behalf of the prisoners, it is desirable that I should state my reasons for the order which I propose to make.2. Before a recent amendment, the procedure prescribed by Section 104, Insolvency Act, was that the Insolvency Court should cause notice to be served upon the insolvent, and if it framed a charge against him, it should follow the procedure for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates prescribed by Chap. 21, Criminal P.C. The Chapter of the Code relating to trials before High Courts and Courts of Sessions was not applicable to such trials. In the year 1928, Section 104 was altered and it...
Basiraddi Vs. Sukh Sagar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal384,118Ind.Cas.852
Rankin, C. J.1. In this case the plaintiff took an under-raiyati lease from the proforma defendants 5 and 6 whose title is not in dispute. The lease he took purported to be unregistered and therefore it is made invalid by Section 85, Ben. Ten Act Nevertheless the plaintiff went into possession under it, paid rents to his landlords, made no objection, and in that condition of things in or about 1924 he was dispossessed, according to the findings of fact, by defendants 1 to 4, the defendants 1 to 4 having no shred or pretence of title whatever, they being merely trespassers. The question is whether the plaintiff can recover in ejectment, his suit not being brought under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. It is said that as he cannot prove his title from his landlords by reason of the permanent lease being invalid and not evidence he is liable to be ejected without any remedy by any trespasser apart from Section 9. Specific Relief Act, That seems to me to be an erroneous proposition of law t...
J.C. Galstaun Vs. Pramatha Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal470
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case the appellant, J.C. Galstaun, was defendant in title suit No. 3 of 1918 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. The case had reference to certain land situate to the south of premises belonging to the appellant and was settled in terms of a petition of compromise filed on 28th November 1918.2. Reading the petition of compromise as it now stands, and as it stood on the date of the decree, the first word of the third line on the third page is the word ' whole ' and the effect of the petition so read has been held to be that while the respondents were to give certain land to the appellant the appellant was to give in exchange an equal quantity of land from the land abutting certain roads, but if this land of the appellant was not sufficient to equalize in area the land which the appellant was to receive, then the appellant would pay for the whole of the land which he was to receive at a certain price. The respondent's contention is that the word 'whol...
Eradat Sarakar Vs. Abu Ahamed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Cal558
B.B. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of defendant 1 which arises out of a suit brought by a large number of plaintiffs for setting aside a revenue sale of towzi No. 1080 of the Birbhum Collectorate. This estate belonged to a large number of cosharers including several defendants in this case. It is not necessary to give the shares of the parties. The important fact is that defendant 3 had a small share as proprietor and another share as purchaser of an interest which consisted of a mokarari mourashi ease in favour of defendants 20 to 26. There was a small arrear for the share of some of the plaintiffs. There was no separate account, but by an arrangement among the several cosharers of the property, they used to pay revenue according to their shares in the collectorate. The revenue of the March Kist of 1922 being in arrears, the whole estate was advertised for sale. Defendant 20 applied for payment of the arrears to the collectorate and the Collector granted permission to pay th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »